Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 09:51:24 AM CST

(Related: Almost 20,000 Alabamians voted for 3rd party presidential candidates this week. - promoted by mooncat)

When I voted this (Tuesday) morning, I was disgusted to see that of 22 offices listed on the ballot, only 3 were contested. All the rest listed only one candidate -- a Republican.

That's nuts! It demonstrates a failure of the political process in Alabama and certainly demonstrates the failure of the Democratic Party.

If the duopoly didn't impose restrictions to limit access to the ballot (e.g., onerous petition signature requirements), there might have been at least some third-party candidates (Green Party, Libertarian, etc.) on the ballot.

It's further proof of how the duopoly is raping America for its own advantage and gain.

Only one name for too many offices -- some places it's a Democrat, some a Republican. Let's look beyond the political parties and try to understand what causes this.

I think at the bedrock level it has to be related to voter attitudes: complacency; apathy; distrust of government or the system; outright fear of getting involved. What we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that in many, many places there is no one interested enough in being the alternative choice for school board, commissioner, etc. to pay a small fee and sign up to run. Where there's only one name on the ballot, challengers don't even need to worry about barriers to alternative parties -- all they have to do is sign up as a candidate of the "other party." But they don't do it.

Does it mean they're satisfied with the status quo? I don't know, but it distresses me that Alabamians have so few choices for so many offices. How can more people be encouraged to get involved?

I am extremely disappointed with the Alabama Democratic party. If there is no improvement there then a third party is a must, imo. No opposition to the cons on the ballot in many cases. I have emailed our county person twice wanting to get involved, and have not received a response. No recruiting, no advertising, not much there. DC party in Alabama needs "fixing".

I'm inferring that Blue_Sky was expressing disappointment in the state Democratic party - the ADP. ADC is the African-American caucus in the Democratic Party, usually personified by Dr. Joe Reed.

I'm not thrilled with Tuesday's outcome in Alabama but do see some positive signs, notably how well Judge Vance did after only being in the race for 3 months.

Not sure most progressives in AL realize how deeply dysfunctional the ADP has been in the past and how flawed a party Judge Kennedy took over. Not saying he or the party is perfect now - far from it - but he's trying to change and rebuild at the same time.

If you have ideological differences that cause you to choose a 3rd party, I can respect that. But choosing to abandon the ADP based on failure to perform - well, show me a 3rd party in Alabama that fields viable candidates, and we'll talk.

I meant the ADP which is a third party already. It is pathetic that the party has fallen as low as it has. If it can not lead, then we need another party to compete with the republiCons -and yes I did mean that.

Now if those votes had went to Alex Sink instead then we could have possibly prevented this idiocy Florida has suffered through once again caused by Scott. Third parties only work in Democrats favor if they are Libertarian because they will hurt Republicans on the ballot, but anything like Green or Independent party candidates will only hurt Democrats in the long run.

Now if you were to formula a Libertarian movement in Alabama then the state would become more competitive because they would pull some voters from the AL GOP.

"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

that you don't run against a sitting judge, at least in Huntsville, if that judge was elected and not appointed to fill a vacancy. I know that from a family source-- it is just frowned on. Won't say it never happened-- we had Demos make a run for Tommy Ragland's seat (emboldened by the Republican tide?), but you won't see it too often. Mainly it is lawyers running for those seats, and they don't want to incur the wrath of the judiciary where they must bring the cases of their clients. So that explains some of the unopposed candidates but of course not the non-judicial ones.

In Mobile, where we lived when I was in med school, the unwritten rule was that if you did run against an elected sitting judge and lost you were expected to leave town. Don't know about the rest of the state.

I am in favor of third party candidates at the local level, but most attorneys would no more shoot themselves in the foot as a third party candidate than they would for one of the main two. Not sure how you solve that problem.

Really makes no sense to me why certain positions should be with a party at all-- judges, school board, etc.

is the best reason not to vote for an un-electable third party candidate...Even though Alabama's electoral votes didn't really count, the media is touting Obama's popular vote win...My vote for the President counts!